Going Beyond!!! March 2018 - hiregangeacademy.com · Hiregange Academy 3 Carry forward of KKC, EC...
Transcript of Going Beyond!!! March 2018 - hiregangeacademy.com · Hiregange Academy 3 Carry forward of KKC, EC...
Going Beyond!!! March 2018
Hiregange Academy - Empowering Knowledge & Employability
Disclaimer: The “Going beyond” is meant for informational purpose only and does not purport to be
advice or opinion, legal or otherwise, whatsoever. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the
sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business. Before making any decision or taking
any action, you should consult a qualified professional adviser.
Hiregange Academy 1
Hiregange Academy
GST Special
Case laws
Student
portal
Happenings at Academy
Reach us at: Hiregange Academy #1010, 1st floor, 26th main, (Above Corporation Bank) 4th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 041 Mob. – 9620116163 [email protected] www.hiregangeacademy.com
2
Indirect Tax Basket
GST Special
GST on carry forward of KKC,EC etc
Reimbursements under Service Tax VS GST
Effectiveness of anti-profiteering provisions in GST
Case Laws
Global Energy Food Industries Vs. CCE
Henkel Adhesives Technologies India Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE
Hiregange Academy
Look out for
Students portal
Happenings at Academy
Compendium
Hiregange Academy
3
Carry forward of KKC, EC etc.,
into GST – implications of
recent Delhi High court
decision
Education Cess was being levied on
Central Excise and Service Tax from
10.09.2014. Education Cess paid on the
purchase was available as credit against
payment of education cess on payment on
the output removal. Credit of cess was not
able to use for the payment of duty. Later
when the rate of excise duty was increased
from 12% to 12.5%, cess was rescinded.
There by the accumulated credit was not
able to be used. Similar was in case of
Krishi Kalyan Cess credit in case of service
tax. Now whether this accumulated credit
of cess can be carried forward into the GST
under the transition provision is the issue,
there was contradicting views on this some
in favour and some against. Few of them
have carried forward the credit, however
recently, there were news articles
published in the newspapers that
companies carried forwarded the credit of
KKC may face fine/penalties citing that the
recent judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High
Court in case of Cellular Operators
Association of India and Others Vs UOI
and Others 2018-TIOL-310-HC-DEL-ST. In
this background, an attempt has been
made in this article to explain the Delhi
High Court decision and its implication on
the KKC/EC carried forwarded into GST.
Background of the Case Under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
(CCR, for short), CENVAT credit of EC and
SHE Cess can be availed and utilised for
payment of EC and SHE Cess on
manufactured goods or output services
while the cross utilisation of EC and SHE
towards payment of Excise Duty or Service
Tax was not permitted. However, EC and
SHE cess were exempted (on excisable
goods W.E.F 01.03.2015 and taxable
services W.E.F 01.06.2015).
The credit of EC/SHEC on inputs received
after 1.3.2015 but charged with EC/SHEC
is allowed to utilize for payment of Excise
duty/service tax (similarly for the input
services received after 01.06.2015).
However, the unanswered question
remains what to do with the unutilized
credit of EC/SHEC lying as on
01.03.2015/01.06.2015 whether it lapses
or can be sought as refund or used for the
payment of tax/duty?
A writ petition has been filed inter alia
seeking direction that the credit
accumulated as on 01st June 2015 on
account of EC and SHEC should be
allowed to be utilised for payment of
service tax.
Contentions The petitioners claim a vested right to avail
benefit of the unutilized amount of EC or
SHE credit, which was available and had
not been set off as on 1st March 2015 and
1st June 2015 for payment of tax on
excisable goods and taxable services
respectively. The contention was that EC
and SHE were subsumed in the Central
Excise Duty, the general rate of which was
increased from 12% to 12.5%, and service
tax, which was increased from 12.36% to
14%. Reliance is placed upon the Budget
Speech of the Finance Minister and the
memorandum explaining provisions of
Finance Bill, 2015. Reference is also made
to the TRU letter F.No.334/5/2015-TRU
dated 28th February 2015.
Decision The petitioners claim a vested right to avail
benefit of the unutilized amount of EC or
SHE credit, which was available and had
not been set off as on 1st March 2015 and
01/06/15 for payment of tax on excisable
goods and taxable services respectively.
The contention was that EC and SHE were
subsumed in the Central Excise Duty, the
general rate of which was increased from
12% to 12.5%, and service tax, which was
increased from 12.36% to 14%.
GST - Special
Hiregange Academy
4
Reliance is placed upon the Budget Speech
of the Finance Minister and the
memorandum explaining provisions of
Finance Bill, 2015. Reference is also made
to the TRU letter F.No.334/5/2015-TRU
dated 28th February 2015.
Decision The court has held that Manufacturers
and Service providers are entitled to avail
and utilize EC and SHEC against the
liability of EC and SHEC before the cut-off
dates i.e. 01st March 2015 in case of
Goods and 01st June 2015 in case of
Services, as the EC and SHEC was ceased
to be applicable after the said dates. The
provisos added to Rule 3, sub-rule (7) in
clause (b) allowing utilization of EC and
SHEC (availed on inputs, capital goods or
service received after 01st June 2015) for
making payment of service tax is in the
nature of concessions confined to a limited
and narrow set of cases which are distinct
and separate and are not of general
application. Therefore, the same cannot be
applied to the balance of EC and SHEC
available as on 01st March 2015 and 01st
June 2015 as the said benefit of cross-
utilization was never available earlier and
this amounts to seeking the additional
benefit and concession beyond those
granted. Hence, Article 14 was not
offended. Further, the Hon‟ble High Court
held that there is no provision in the law
which states that EC and SHEC are
subsumed into Service Tax and Excise
Duty to allow the cross-utilisation of credit.
Thereby decision concluded that the credit
of EC and SHEC cannot be used for the
payment of excise duty.
Implications on the Credit carried
forwarded into GST i. The decision of the Hon‟ble High court
restricted to the subject of cross-
utilisation of EC and SHEC against the
payment of Central Excise or Service
Tax. This judgment nowhere discusses
the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of EC
and SHEC and the same lapsing.
Therefore it is of no dispute that the
credit was eligible and did not lapse.
ii. Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 entitles
a registered person to carry forward
the closing balance of CENVAT Credit
in the last return filed under the
existing law. „CENVAT Credit‟ has been
defined in the explanation to section
142 giving the meaning assigned to it
under Central Excise Act or rules
issued there-under.
iii. By virtue of the Rule 3(1)/(1A) of CCR,
2004, EC, SHEC and KKC are treated
as „CENVAT credit‟. Though EC, SHEC
and KKC (for brevity „Cess‟) are ceased
to be applicable, there is no
corresponding provision in the old
laws for the lapse of such credits
(unutilised portion). Therefore, as per
Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017, the
balance of Cess lying as closing
balance in the last return can be
carried forward to GST.
iv. Rule 3(4) or 3(7) of CCR, 2004 provides
restriction for utilisation of Credit of
Cess cross utilisation for payment of
service tax/Excise duty. From the
above referred discussion, it is clear
that carry forward of Credit into GST
and utilisation of the same are two
different aspects and cannot be mixed.
This also shows that carry forward of
„Cess‟ into GST does not get impacted
by the provisions restricting their
utilisation under CENVAT credit
Rules, 2004.
v. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court has only
discussed the second part i.e. cross-
utilisation of EC and SHEC but has
not discussed the first part i.e.
CENVATABILITY of „Cess‟ which is
essential to determine whether such
credits can be carried forward to GST
or not. As „Cess‟ passed the first
criteria, the credit of the same can be
carried forward to GST.
vi. As the issue decided by the Delhi High
Court is related to cross-utilisation of
EC, SHEC which does not have any
impact on CENVATABILITY of the
GST - Special
Hiregange Academy
5
cesses, the said decision does not have
any impact on the credit carried
forwarded into GST.
vii. Further, while giving the above
judgement High Court has observed
that there is o specific provision in
existing laws stating that EC and
SHEC are subsumed in Service Tax
and Excise Duty. While introducing
GST, Central Government has
amended the Constitution of India by
subsuming the Service tax and Excise
Duty into GST and an article has been
included requiring the GST Council to
suggest the Cesses that should be
subsumed into GST. The list of Cesses
subsumed into GST also includes KKC
and also there are exists repeal
provisions withdrawing levy of „Cess‟
as consequential to the introduction of
GST. Therefore, on this aspect also the
Delhi High Court Judgment can be
differentiated and can be said that it
does not have any impact on carrying
forward of credit into GST. However,
the contrary views also being
expressed.
_ CA Venkat Prasad
_ CA Lakshman K
Service Tax Experience
The service tax valuation rules had under
rule 5 (1) set out that the expenses or costs
incurred in the course of providing a
service ( could be in relation to or
incidental) are ot be included in the gross
value of service.
This was objected as Section 67 was only
on the amount charged for such services.
Amounts charged other than for the
services was disputed as not liable. This
view was also taken for fuel/ explosives
provided by the Customer to the service
provider without which the service could
not have been rendered. Also in case of
builders/ contractors who were supplied
steel and cement which was used in the
construction of the factory/ building.
The Larger bench in Bayana builders case
( confirmed by SC in 2018) had held that
tax could only be on the gross amount
charged and therefore the Free of Cost
supplies could not be included.
Subsequent to 2015 section 67 valuation
section was enlarged to include
reimbursements and therefore the defence
of “gross amount charged” may not be
relied on unless further decisions come.
Recently in March 2018 the Supreme
Court has upheld the 2013 Delhi High
Court decision in Intercontinental
Technocrats & Consultants Vs UOI that
Rule 5 (1) of the Service Tax Valuation
Rules was ultra virus of Section 67 of the
Finance Act. Therefore under service tax
there is no liability for separately charged
amounts which were not part of the
service. There was also a rule 5(2) which
allowed for not including the value subject
to one being a pure agent ( 4 conditions)
and complying with further conditions ( 8).
Many of the conditions were not possible
to be complied as impracticable and
therefore the challenge to rule 5 (1).
GST - Special
Reimbursements under Service
Tax VS GST Practicality of Reimbursement
deduction in GST
The tug of war of the revenue to include
every cost incurred by the supplier in the
value of goods and services and the efforts
of tax payers seeking out deduction from
the taxable values has been there in sales
tax, central excise, service tax and now in
GST. In this article we examine what
exactly was the dispute in service tax
(which were eventually decided in favour of
the service provider) and whether the
similar position can be taken in GST for
various types of transaction.
Hiregange Academy
6
GST Value
In GST the transaction value ( invoiced) would be the price payable/ paid for supply as
long as it is between unrelated parties and price is the sole consideration. [ sec15(1)]
Where one supplies goods or services then he needs to ensure that value includes all
amounts the supplier is to pay in relation to such supply before or at the time of supply. [
sec15(2)(b)] The interpretation of in relation to in the Cenvat credit rules has been that it is
to be read widely and liberally.
Further any incidental expenses for anything done by the supplier in respect of the supply
is to be included. [ sec 15(2)©]
In GST there has been an attempt to overcome this by way of section 15 talking of price
should be the sole consideration. Therefore the obligation of the receiver being taken by the
supplier could still enjoy the exclusion. The coverage under rule 33 may ensure that one is
derisked.
We examine which are the common expenses which can fall within the above inclusion and
which MAY not be covered as under:
GST - Special
Description of Expenses in Specific
Supply
Remarks Ref.
Salaries paid to Consultants engaged by
Management Consultant
Directly in relation to. Was
obligation of the supplier.
Sec 2(b)
Telephone Expenses of Employees of
supplier
Directly in relation to. Was
obligation of the supplier
2(b)
Conveyance Reimbursement to above 2
cases.
Incidental for service 2( C)
Technical Consulting agreement with
Travel and Stay to be borne by receiver-
incurred by supplier
Travel not part of technical
service not in relation to or
incidental to advise.
Ex. Not.
Publication cost of Trade Union recovered
from members separately
Neither direct or incidental +
exempted
Ex Not.
Security/ Manpower/ Lift Maintenance
provided by 3rd parties in Residential
Welfare recovered separately
RWA not competent or
expected to provide these.
Neither direct or incidental +
exempted.
Rule 33
Buying garment samples at exhibition by
buying agent on request of manufacturer.
Not relating to buying agency
business- Neither direct or
incidental + exempted
33
Customs House Agent paying for port,
transhipment, storage, customs duty,
transportation on actual basis
On CHA liable
on rest not liable as pure agent.
33
Explosive/ Fuel provided by customer for
quarrying of coal/ stones
Certainly in relation to or incidental
to supply. Liable to be included.
15(1)
Hiregange Academy
7
GST - Special
Description of Expenses in
Specific Supply
Remarks Ref.
Cement & Steel provided FOC to
contractor
Could be considered as a supply from
the contractor as construction service
provided.
15(1)
Mould & Dies supplier by principal to
suppliers of parts.
While the provision of the mould by
customer is not a supply- the part
which is sent back using the Free
mould could be said to impact the sole
consideration. Liable
15(1)
Possible Practical Solutions
The tax optimisation without exposure or limited exposure in such transactions may be
done in the following manner to optimise tax net of credits and also avoid disputes and
consequent cost of resolution:
A. The receiver who is registered under GST who is eligible for the GST credit (on
activities in furtherance of business) may like to avoid any break up and go for a
composite contract for supply of goods and services. This would also enable the
supplier to avail the credit of the GST paid on all the taxable supplies involved and
ensure that benefit passed on to the customer.
B. The receiver who is unable to avail the credit or unwilling to avail the credit and go for
a lengthy refund procedure ( at present manual and taking time - expected to be fast
in due course of time- when not known) could however follow Rule 33 where
applicable. This rule has been rationalised as to the definition of pure agent ( 3
conditions) as well as further ( only 4 compared to 8 earlier) Those who do not follow
Rule 33 may face disputes which may again involve writ in the high court and
subsequent resolution by Supreme Court which could take a few years.
Conclusion Suppliers who are looking at excluding the value of goods or services which are not in
relation to the supply or not incidental to the supply may seek the clarity from the GST
Council, go for advance ruling if amounts are significant. It could also be a good idea to
seek the confirmation of the jurisdictional revenue officer by sending a letter enclosing the
contract and reason for exclusion. This would at least provide a defence for demands for
longer period.
- CA Madhukar N Hiregange
DON’T YOU SEE THAT THE WHOLE AIM OF NEWSPEAK
IS TO NARROW THE RANGE OF THOUGHT…!
- GEORGE ORWELL
Hiregange Academy
8
Effectiveness of anti-
profiteering provisions in GST
Game changing GST law has brought-in lot of
practical difficulties for a tax payer. Many of
these difficulties are being addressed by the
government which is a positive sign. One
major issue which is being faced by the tax
payer now is on compliance with anti-
profiteering provisions. It is also a fact that
implementation of anti-profiteering provisions
was never been easy in any of the countries
wherein GST system was introduced in the
past. Even in our country it may not be a
smooth sailing affair. However, a reasonable
system could be implemented considering the
experience of anti-profiteering in other
countries with few precautions.
Dictionary meaning of profiteering is to make
or seek to make an excessive or unfair profit,
especially illegally. Greatest fear which any
country had with introduction of GST system
is effect on pricing of goods or services leading
to inflation.
In Indian GST law, Section 171 of CGST Act
2017 provides that any reduction in GST rate
on supply of goods/services or benefit of ITC
needs to be passed on to the recipient by way
of commensurate reduction in prices.
Therefore, the tax payer who is enjoying the
benefit of extra credit or reduction in rate of
taxes needs to pass on corresponding degree
or proportionate benefit to the customers. Any
extra profit should not be made on account
GST rate or credit.
The law does not consider the situations
where as a result of implementation of GST,
there is a drop in the orders due to
uncertainty, need to incentivize the trade by
increasing the rate as well as the margin
provided to the retailers and many such
practical downsides of GST.
Section 171 also enables the central
government to constitute an authority to
examine if input tax credit availed by any
registered person or the reduction in tax rate
have actually resulted in commensurate
reduction in price of goods or services
supplied. Certain transitional provisions in
CGST Act provides for passing on the
benefits of credits on closing stock of goods
as well.
An authority has been constituted for
monitoring anti-profiteering in India after
introduction of GST. The authority can order
for reduction in prices or order for return of
excess amount collected by supplier of goods
/ services with 18% interest to customer.
Authority also got powers to order for
cancellation of registration or levy penalty.
Action would be taken by the authority
based on the application made by interested
party. Tenure of this authority would be for 2
years from date of selection of chairman
which could be extended if required. The
present chairman has been appointed from
November 2017 and therefore, the present
authority would be active till November 2019
to monitor anti-profiteering provisions.
When GST was introduced in countries like
Australia, Canada and Singapore, the
inflation rate got increased. In countries like
Greece and Portugal, after introduction of
GST the inflation got reduced. There were
instances where inflation increased after few
years of introduction of GST in some of the
countries. It would not be easy to assess if
introduction of GST in India would lead to
increase or decrease in rate of inflation. In
most of the countries where GST was
introduced, the anti-profiteering provisions
were also introduced. However, the countries
were not successful in implementing it on all
goods or services. The provisions were made
applicable mostly for retail products.
Issues with present provisions in
India Though most of the tax payers are aware of
the requirement of anti-profiteering
provisions, they are not clear how to comply
with it as there are no guidelines issued
prescribed for compliance. In countries like
Australia, the awareness of anti-profiteering
was started much prior to introduction of
GST law.
GST - Special
Hiregange Academy
9
Such awareness with clear guidelines would
have reduced the confusion among tax
payers in India.
A complaint application form has been
released for public for complaining against
profiteering. However, for a layman filling the
form would not be an easy task as it requires
the complainant to fill information like HSN,
ITC claim, pre-GST price etc. Unless the
form is simplified, successful
implementation would be a dream.
There has been news from past few months
on simplification of complaint form. Faster
action is requirement in this regard which
otherwise provides extra time for some of the
tax payers who could be taking advantage of
GST to increase their profit.
More number of complaints being received
are in retail and construction sector. Retail
industry would find it difficult to comply with
anti-profiteering provisions as most of their
products would be covered under legal
metrology act with MRP printed. There would
be sales strategy involved in pricing of goods
as well. For example, fixing price at Rs.99/-
or Rs.999/-. Change in such MRP due to
change in rate of GST could affect their
business.
Representation could be made by the
industry to address such situations.
There are many factors such as seasonal
sales, global commodity prices, competition,
duration of sales, new business start-ups
which could influence the pricing of goods.
Presently it is not clear how to consider
these factors for compliance with anti-
profiteering provisions. The law is also not
clear as to duration or time available for
compliance with anti-profiteering provision.
There could be cases wherein the inventory
would be held with distributors or dealers
with prices printed and negotiated.
There are also legal arguments that this
provision is only for “tax” and tax means
GST. Therefore, only the cases where there
was a reduction in GST rate – say for
restaurants and other items in 28% bracket
and there was a reduction, the anti-
profiteering would apply.
Action by tax payers
It is very important for the tax payers to
understand that compliance with anti-
profiteering provisions would continue until
there would be change in rate of GST or
increase in credits. Simple exercise like
identifying the pre-GST profit and post-GST
profit due to increased credit or reduction of
rate of GST could be useful at this stage.
Other factors which has led to decrease in
costing of goods or services such as abolition
of entry tax, central sales tax and other
cesses should also be considered. There are
also possibilities of increase in costing due to
factors such as GST implementation cost,
ERP customisation expenses, disruption due
to change in business process etc. which
needs to be considered for arriving at the
final profit or benefit for passing on to
customers. Wherever it is clear, the tax
payers should pass on the benefits to the
customers with clear documentation
maintained to substantiate it later on in case
of enquiries.
Conclusion: Successful implementation of anti-
profiteering provisions would help the
consumers in large. It is expected that the
guidelines would be issued soon for anti-
profiteering. Professionals could caution
their clients and help them to prepare for
compliance. As discussed earlier, there are
many practical challenges in implementation
of the provisions, especially for retail sector.
Professionals could help the sector with
suitable representation highlighting all the
issues and disclosure of facts and why anti
profiteering not applicable in border line
cases to the GST authorities which could
avoid longer period demand.
_ CA Madhukar N Hiregangge
_ CA Mahadev R
GST - Special
Hiregange Academy
10
Global Energy Food Industries
Vs. CCE, Ahmadabad-II 2018 (9)
G.S.T.L. 92 (Tri.- Ahmadabad)
Facts: Appellant has filed a refund claim of
accumulated CENVAT Credit in accordance
with Rule 5 of CCR 2004. The refund claim
is rejected on the ground that the inputs
procured in a particular month were not
used in the manufacture of the goods
exported in a particular month but used in
the subsequent months.
Issue: whether the refund of CENVAT Credit on
inputs is eligible for a particular month, if
the same has been used in the
manufacture in the subsequent months?
Decision: The inputs are used in the manufacture of
finished goods which were ultimately
exported resulting into accumulation of the
CENVAT Credit. The objective is to allow
the cash refund of the accumulated
CENVAT Credit availed on the inputs and
used in the manufacture of export of goods.
It is not the intention that there should be
one-to-one relationship between the inputs
and the finished goods in claiming case
refund of the credit. The refund of CENVAT
Credit is admissible.
Comments: In many cases, the CENVAT credit availed
in a particular month may not be
completely utilised for the payment of
Excise duty/service tax in the same month
resulting in the accumulation of the credit
and carry forward to the subsequent
months. As rightly held in the above
decision, there is no requirement to show
the one to one relationship between the
inputs used and output exported and
refund is eligible as long as the inputs are
finally consumed in the manufacture of
exported goods.
Link to GST:
Even under GST, there is no requirement
of one-to-one correlation of the
inputs/input services with outward
supplies of exports. The ratio of the
aforesaid decision squarely applicable even
under GST.
It is worth noting that Rule 89 of CGST
Rules, 2017 provides for determination of
the admissible refund amount:
Refund Amount= (Turnover of zero-rated
supply of goods + Turnover of zero-rated
supply of services) x Net ITC ÷Adjusted
Total Turnover.
The expression “Net ITC” was defined to
mean that input tax credit availed on
inputs and input services during the
relevant period. Similarly, the expression
“relevant period” was defined to mean that
the period for which the claim has been
filed. The plain reading of these two
expressions restricts the refund only to the
extent of the ITC availed during particular
month/quarter and unable to encash the
accumulated credit lying at the beginning
of the month/quarter. Further, in a
scenario of exporters not having turnover
during any month/quarter may not able to
get the refund of ITC availed during such
months/quarters permanently (i.e. neither
in that month/quarter nor in future).
Therefore, there is urgent need of
amendment in this rule enabling to get the
refund of accumulated credit. Further to
avoid such anomaly and in absence of the
any beneficial amendments, it is advisable
for the exporters to take the other option of
paying IGST on the export turnover and
going for refund thereafter.
_ Prepared by S.Harshitha
_ Vetted by CA Venkat Prasad
CASE LAW
Hiregange Academy
11
Henkel Adhesives Technologies
India Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, PUNE-III
2018-TIOL-660-ESTAT-MUMBAI
Facts: Appellant has entered into contract with
the dealers/distributers for sale of goods.
The terms of the agreement were that 50%
of the advertisement expenditure incurred
by the dealers/distributors shall be borne
by Appellant and balance 50% will be
borne by the dealers/distributers.
Department attempted to include the share
of the advertisement cost borne by the
dealers in the assessable value and
demanded the differential excise duty.
Issue: whether the advertisement cost incurred
and shared by the dealers/distributors
constitutes the additional consideration in
the hands of the manufacturer and liable
for Excise duty?
Decision: The relationship between the appellant and
the dealers/distributors is on principal to
principal basis, therefore only
consideration received by the appellant
alone will form the transaction value, no
further addition should be made. As per
the agreement, there is no compulsion on
dealers/distributers to perform the
advertisement. It is on the discretion of the
dealers/distributers that whatever
advertisement in respect of the appellant‟s
goods is done, 50% of the actual cost will
be borne by the Appellant and the
remaining 50% will be borne by the
dealers/distributers. The 50% of the cost
borne by the dealers/distributers which is
the expenses of the dealers/distributers
and the appellant is nothing to do with that
portion of the 50%. Amount of such
advertisement is not flowing to the
appellant as an additional consideration.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the
dealers/distributors bearing the
advertisement cost to the extent of 50% is
part of the assessable value.
Comments: It is a common practice in the various
industries to enter into an agreement for
sharing of expenses. However, the
expenses shared by the other parties will
not form part of the liability of the
Appellant and the same is not required to
be included in the Assessable value.
Link to GST: As the same concept of „Transaction value‟
existed under Central Excise law being
continued under the GST, the rationale of
the above decision has relevance under
GST also and can be applied in similar
facts and circumstances.
Further according to the provisions of the
Section 15(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, any
amount that the supplier is liable to pay in
relation to such supply but which has
been incurred by the recipient of the
supply and not included in the price
actually paid or payable has to be included
in the Transaction value. As seen from the
facts of the present case, there is no
liability on the Appellant qua
manufacturer to incur such expenses and
it is only the dealers/distributors. Hence,
rationale of the above decision holds good
even under the GST regime and the cost
shared is not to be included in the
Transaction value.
_ Prepared by S.Haritha
_ Vetted by CA Venkat Prasad
CASE LAW
“ What is work and what
is not work are questions
that perplex the wisest of
men”
-Bhagavadgita
12
1. Study Guidelines for Elective Papers https://resource.cdn.icai.org/48991bos32810.pdf
2. Extension of the last date for submission of examination application forms in respect of Special Examination for members of foreign accounting bodies held under MRA/MOU entered into by ICAI with the foreign accounting bodies. https://www.icai.org/new_post.html?post_id=14498&c_id=411
3. GST- Refunds to Exporters & Others – detailed analysis https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/gst-refunds-exporters-detailed-analysis.html
4. Office Directory Examination Department.
https://www.icai.org/new_post.html?post_id=4368&c_id=416
5. Corrigendum to RTP Final Paper 3 Advanced Auditing and Professional Ethics Printed Copy May 2018 Examination https://resource.cdn.icai.org/48998bos32825.pdf
6. Scholarships for CA Students https://resource.cdn.icai.org/49013bos32828.pdf
7. Schedule of Mock Test Paper - Foundation, Intermediate & Final (New Course) / IIPC & Final (Old Course) https://resource.cdn.icai.org/49149bos32890.pdf
Hiregange Academy
Happenings at Academy
Upcoming Events
Topics Date & Time Venue
Seminar on "Recent
changes in Foreign
Trade Policy"
24th March
2018 &
09.30 AM to
06.15 PM
Hotel Pai Viceroy, Senate,4th
floor, 1504, 16th Cross, 9th
Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560011.
13
We are encouraged by our readers and the complements received.
In our endeavour to improve our quality we request you to give two
minutes time to give feedback.
-Thanking you,
Newsletter team
Write us at- https://docs.google.com/a/hiregangeacademy.com/forms/d/1LprDBXql1Ld0r
G7cn8p-dMW- lhkQRPcZtN6bwSXrr0/edit?usp=drive web
Hiregange Academy
Kudos to team H&A for special contribution to
“GST-Made Simple” Book published by KSCAA.